100 miler is the hardest thing ever

Okay I'll admit I get a kick out of threads like this.

As someone who has run a sub 2:20 marathon this year (and barely finished a few of the 100-milers I've started...including WS100) I've experienced how an ultra can make one really have a melt down. I've had some total disaster experiences at the ultra distance.

That being said just because a race is longer does not make it "harder." Sure there are more things that can go exponentially wrong in longer races (and it sucks!), but if one is trying 100% then any surface and any distance race is going to have a constant level of challenge and pain. A 10km is not harder than a 5km....just like a 100-miler isn't "harder" than a 50-miler.

3km or 5km on the track? Strikes fear in my heart. Super tough. 10km cross country? Very hard. I've run some really tough 50km and 50-mile races as well. Mountains and more flat dirt trails...in heat and cold and mud and snow. The 100-milers really mess you up health wise and can only be raced sparingly in a given season. Same goes with road marathons though. So there is that.

A final note: It is very rare to run a really fast 100-mile course. Most 100-milers (even WS100) are going to be on single track trails and have a decent amount of hills/uneven surface running and potentially harsh weather conditions. So pace goes out the window. Running 100-miles on a track or a flat trail/road would correlate a lot more directly to road marathon fitness/PRs. A race like UTMB....still a correlation but it is not everything. Tim Tollefson (3rd at UTMB the past two year and top American has run 2:18 in the marathon and been very consistent though!). Still, some pure "mountain runner guys" have kicked my butt and I doubt some of them could crack 2:25-2:28 for the marathon flat out. 100-milers are really tough, but so is any distance race. When the race is "shorter and flat" you simply have to run faster and experience more intense pain!

Cool I guess all that is true. Running any distance as fast as possible will hurt. Again I was mostly talking about flatish 100 miles where I believe I could run fast. Although I really am addicted to mountains and wildlife so I think that would be an advantage in an ultra like western states where you get to see all that. Nobody wants to run 100 miles around a ghetto outside Tulsa.

To Tom Cruise above, I'm honored that you think I'm sub elite. It is an upgrade from a previous poster calling me a 4 hour thoner.

This thread reeks of insecurity.

Banana Bread wrote:

Cool I guess all that is true. Running any distance as fast as possible will hurt. Again I was mostly talking about flatish 100 miles where I believe I could run fast. Although I really am addicted to mountains and wildlife so I think that would be an advantage in an ultra like western states where you get to see all that. Nobody wants to run 100 miles around a ghetto outside Tulsa.

To Tom Cruise above, I'm honored that you think I'm sub elite. It is an upgrade from a previous poster calling me a 4 hour thoner.

No wonder you think you can do it. You live in Tulsa. That place is flatter than a pancake. I ran there a few years ago with a friend and she showed me the "heartbreaking climbs" you guys had. I didnt even feel them. And nice to see you change your mind once sage got involved.

Hey BananaBread, if you live in Tulsa there is a 50 Miler this next weekend called Midnight Madness. I am gonna be in the area by chance and was gonna run it but I am nowhere close to being recovered from my last 100 miler a few weeks ago. You should run it, should be flat and fast. Report back how it goes.

RastaMon wrote:

Hey BananaBread, if you live in Tulsa there is a 50 Miler this next weekend called Midnight Madness. I am gonna be in the area by chance and was gonna run it but I am nowhere close to being recovered from my last 100 miler a few weeks ago. You should run it, should be flat and fast. Report back how it goes.

Banana Bread will never do an ultra. Hes too into just making claims. Its like that seinfeld episose where jerry won a race in middle school by accident and swore to never run again to stay on top. If you havent done it...no one knows you suck.

not dean wrote:

Banana Bread wrote:

How am I a poser? When did I ever claim to be Bekele, or anything like him? I'm just saying 100 miles is not hard under 24 hours if you have some running endurance. I've never picked oranges of a tree before but I literally know it's easy. I have no intention of doing it anytime soon. Does that mean I'm been unfair and avoiding the task because I couldn't really do it?

Does that mean I'm been unfair and avoiding the task because I couldn't really do it?[/

Yes, yes it does. It's not easy. "some endurance" lol. how about a TON of endurance. Just go move your arm up and down at 180 bpm for 24 hours and see how hard it gets. Running consistently for 24 hours straight is unbelievably painful.

Banana Bread is right and wrong at the same time. Running 100 miles under 24 hours is really not that hard if you are a solid ultrarunner and do this in a 24 hour race on a road loop. Running 100 miles on trail under 24 hours can be a whole different story depending on the trail. Kind of easy at Rocky Raccoon , very difficult at Hardrock100 for example.

It all depends.

I am just a middle of the pack ultrarunner but I have a sub 17 hour 100 mile PR.

If you want to know a good predicted time for your 100 time in a mountain 100 race like Leadville with a decent bit of climbing and runnable flats. Heres how you do it

Marathon Time (hrs) +1 >>> This will be your first 25 miles. Add 1 more hour to each 25 miles

Mine is a 2.5 marathon

so

2.5+1

+

3.5+1

+

4.5+1

+

5.5+1

=20 hours.

This is absolute minimum (and average). This includes aid stations. ...blisters....sickness...eating...hiking...running etc.

If you train like 150 mile weeks yours will be faster. I train on 85.

And the 20 mile uphill conversation. You guys need to go run some 14ers or manitou incline in co springs. 2:15 marathoners are running 15 minute miles at max heart rate on fresh legs. I think sage ran elberts FKT in 1:07 (4.5 miles) No one could do a 20 min mile at mile 80.

I can't agree with you Sage. A 50 miler is harder than a marathon simply based on the fact that it is double the distance, if one is running the same effort for 26.2 miles then of course and additional 24 miles at the same level of effort, regardless if the pace is slower, is going to be harder. How can you rationalize not agreeing with me. Maybe if it's 100 miles I'd agree do to the slowing down effect but at 50 miles anyone can take their marathon time and train to redline for the full 50 miles to at least make a sub 6 hour fifty.

I demand to be taken seriously.

How can a 100 miler be the hardest thing ever when, according to Karl, 100 miles isn't that far?

Cage Sanady wrote:

I can't agree with you Sage. A 50 miler is harder than a marathon simply based on the fact that it is double the distance, if one is running the same effort for 26.2 miles then of course and additional 24 miles at the same level of effort, regardless if the pace is slower, is going to be harder. How can you rationalize not agreeing with me. Maybe if it's 100 miles I'd agree do to the slowing down effect but at 50 miles anyone can take their marathon time and train to redline for the full 50 miles to at least make a sub 6 hour fifty.

I demand to be taken seriously.

But we don't take you seriously with this comment.

Thats not exactly how the human body works. That means usain bolt could run a mile in 2:40 ish

Sqaumpy nuts wrote:

what does running a marathon have anything to do with running a 100? You dum dum. You think running a fast Marathon has anything to do with being able to run a 24-hour 100 then you have no idea what you're talking about. I think you're kind of a troll but I'll let you enjoy it I think you're just really really dumb person. You think you could run a really fast marathon and as soon as you finish realize that you have to run another 74 miles? Most of you guys are collapsing and making big fuss is about your 26 mile run for babies on flat roads. Marathoning is for the weak that's why there's like 20 thousand people that do every marathon in the country it's so freaking easy

Mate, I never brought up the marathon -- you did.

All I'm saying is for the scrubs in the back half of a 100mi it's really not that challenging to walk for a long time and maybe break into a light jog if you aren't eating a clif bar.

Trust me, I have great respect for the athletes competing for the win, but lets just say the talent fall off is... steep.

If these ultras would let more than 200 people enter there'd be more finishers.

I don't want to put in the work to run fast, so I frolic through the forests and up hills to take cool pics.

Not Dean wrote:

I don't want to put in the work to run fast, so I frolic through the forests and up hills to take cool pics.

I don't want to put in the hard work to run fast with more obstacles so I take the easy way out on run on perfect flat roads and tracks.

HUH YOU GAYUHHHHH SON

Harambe wrote:

If these ultras would let more than 200 people enter there'd be more finishers.

Its called Leadville. And tons of people DNF it every year as their first hundo. Because running 100 miles at elevation is just as easy as gallowwalking and thon, right?

broken arrow wrote:

Sand Dunes wrote:

The Tour De France is way harder than walking for a whole day.

And the RAAM makes the TDF look like childs play. TDF riders are on PEDs for starters, someone cleans your clothes, someone washes and takes care of your bike, a massage is given every evening after a IV for fluids is given, and nice catered meal is served.

versus

Riding 22-23 hours a day for 8 straight days to win the RAAM as Christoph Strasser just did. Even if this guy is on PEDs, it is an insane thing to do or to even comprehend.

Just because someone is on drugs doesn't make what they are doing any easier. If anything drugs make them push themselves even greater and push themselves into greater pain. Like Tom Simpson, because of the stimulants he was on pushed himself so hard up the mountain he litteraly died from cardiac failure.

100 miler runner wrote:

If you want to know a good predicted time for your 100 time in a mountain 100 race like Leadville with a decent bit of climbing and runnable flats. Heres how you do it

Marathon Time (hrs) +1 >>> This will be your first 25 miles. Add 1 more hour to each 25 miles

Mine is a 2.5 marathon

so

2.5+1

+

3.5+1

+

4.5+1

+

5.5+1

=20 hours.

This is absolute minimum (and average). This includes aid stations. ...blisters....sickness...eating...hiking...running etc.

If you train like 150 mile weeks yours will be faster. I train on 85.

And the 20 mile uphill conversation. You guys need to go run some 14ers or manitou incline in co springs. 2:15 marathoners are running 15 minute miles at max heart rate on fresh legs. I think sage ran elberts FKT in 1:07 (4.5 miles) No one could do a 20 min mile at mile 80.

Did that work for you?

Sounds like a weird calculation. I would think you can't calculate your first 100 mile at all. And that is even more true for Leadville because it's so high.

how I know wrote:

YOu know how I know 100 milers are stupid and overrated......

Cause all the ultra-runners get butt-hurt trying to defend their "sporting event" when others make fun of it.

Ever heard a sub 4 minute miler try to defend how hard it was to run a sub 4?

I didn't think so.

You know how I can tell a 20 year old with a below average IQ? They use the term butt-hurt.